Team Fields - 1 David Walker Demands Emancipation: Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World,
1829
1
According to Walker, how had “the white Christians of America” made the
“Coloured People of these United States… the most wretched, degraded and abject set of
beings”? What was Walker’s view of God? What did he believe God would do about
slavery? How and why?
“The White Christians of America” treated the “Coloured People of these United States”
rudely and aggressively. David Walker’s view of God was that if you believe/worship
him and if you do good, good things will happen back. He believed that God would see
everything that happens with slaves and will punish the people who hurt them.
2
In what ways, according to Walker, was “slavery… the source from which most of
our miseries proceed?” How did slavery affect Walker, who was free? How did it affect
other free African Americans, in Walker’s view? How did it affect slaves?
According to David Walker slavery was known as misery because of the way slaves were
being treated, abused, and killed. Walker was affected by slavery because his own kind
was not respected and they could not do anything about it. So he decided to write this
document regarding his opinions/suggestions towards his kind. He proposed slaves to
work for emancipation. The other free African Americans were affected because they
were still communicating with the slaves. It did not affect the slaves instead they were
happy in pursuing what they originally do.
3
What did Walker believe “Men of colour” should do about slavery ]? How should
they deal with the reality of their poverty and marginality? What should slaves do?
David Walker believed that “men of colour” should fight for their rights because they are
men also. It didn’t matter what color their skin was. He believed that they deserved to be
treated better and wanted his “brothers” to “enlighten” other “men of colour” to open
their eyes and realize that they didn’t need to be treated that way. Even if they were poor
or didn’t have well-paying jobs or were a part of lower social classes, it would be better
to live that way than being someone who cleans boots and shoes and gets beaten on a
Comment [CM1]: One of the first steps in
avoiding direct responses to questions is to
remove the original question after one has
responded. Once the questions are deleted,
one will realize that one can extend the
discussion by adding more detail and expanding
the scope of one’s perspective – perhaps
contrasting and comparing situations or
timelines or even different societies and
communities. In this way, one will be able to
develop a more nuanced and sophisticated
habit of thinking and discussing a variety of
topics.
Deleted: god
Deleted: god
Team Fields - 2 daily basis. Walker thought they slaves should go against their masters and to fight for
their emancipation.
4
What did Walker envision about the future of the United States? What grounds did
he have for projecting such a future?
David Walker envisioned the future of the United States to be slave-free, where there
were no slaves and people who were slaves; didn’t necessarily have to be in high social
classes they just needed to stop being mistreated because they were men also. The reason
why Walker protected this future was because he was a “free African American” who had
a slave father. He was angry because of slavery and white supremacy and wanted it to
come to an end.
Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women: Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838
1
According to Grimke, what were the deficiencies of “the butterflies of the
fashionable world”?
One of the main shortcomings of “the butterflies of the fashionable world” that Grimke
addresses is their education or knowledge of things. In a way, she says that the only thing
these butterflies know is how to attract men by their looks, that feminine appeal.
Education is not something they thought would attract men and as Grimke says, “…
where mental superiority exists, a women is generally shunned and regarded as stepping
out of her ‘appropriate sphere…’” 1 Not only that, but she gets into the religious aspect,
talking about how these fashionable women haven’t found Lord Jesus. She says, “… their
weary and heavy laden souls to come unto Him and learn of Him, that they may find
something worthy of their immortal spirit, and their intellectual powers… consecrate
themselves unto the service of God and not, as is now the case, to the pleasure of man.”
1. You should insert footnotes when referencing direct quotes.
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.25", Space
After: 10 pt
Team Fields - 3 Here she follows up the idea of women only knowing how to attract men to the idea of
only being subjects to men.
2
Why were “women being educated, from earliest childhood, to regard themselves
as inferior creatures”? In what ways did this sense of inferiority affect women? How
should women be educated, according Grimke? Why did she believe that a “knowledge of
housewifery” was “an indispensable requisite in a woman’s education”?
Women from the start were taught that they were less than men because that's just how
it's always been. When they look out to the world, they see the men around them superior
to the women. This sense of inferiority affects women in a way that if a man and a
woman were to do the same work, the man would get more credit than the woman,
although he didn’t do anything special or different from the women’s work. Not only that,
but if a woman did the work a man did, and even did it better; she would still be
Deleted: women
considered inferior to the man. But the most important work that was put on a woman’s
Comment [CM2]: Here, you could have tied
this attitude towards contribution by women in
the workplace to the situation leading to the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signed in 2009
shoulders and was in no way associated with men were the house duties. This is the area
of knowledge that Grimke thought women should know because it was the only area
women really got credit for. This should and is women’s area of expertise and this is a
place where they could maybe, just maybe be superior to men; and if not that, maybe a
little more equal.
3
What were the particular oppressions of slave women? What meanings did Grimke
attach to the term enslaved sister? Why was “the moral purity of white woman… deeply
contaminated” by slavery?
The Grimke sister, Sarah, couldn’t even address the women of the south (slave women)
without feeling sorry for the way they’re being treated. She wrote how “…women are
bought and sold in our slave markets, to gratify the brutal lust of those who bear the name
of Christians.” 2 This sentence makes me think what kind of men would molest and rape
2. You should insert footnotes when referencing direct quotes.
Team Fields - 4 women and still be considered a “Christian”? But then I thought of a more modern and
typical example that is similar. Someone who parties, drinks, and smokes go to church
today and still consider himself or herself a “Christian”. This made me realize that
society hasn’t changed and putting a label on yourself won’t change who you really are.
She also described how the slave women suffered from being torn of clothing, sometimes
tied up and whipped, while the lash would tear their almost lifeless body. This really
paints a picture of how severe the beatings were even for the women. Grimke wrote about
the enslaved sister, giving a meaning that they aren’t just property but actual human
beings. She wanted the white women to feel empathy with the slaves and realize that they
are no different from them. Also that the morals of the white women are contaminated
because they’re witnesses to all the impurity that is happening. They would see their own
husbands commit adultery and the women would do nothing about it. This is what she
meant that slowly the women are losing their innocence.
Comment [CM3]: What do many people
consider ‘Christian’? The most fundamental
definition of a ‘Christian’ is one who believes in
Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died to
save the souls of all humans. According to that
definition, Christian affiliation can be broadly
applied. If one wants to drag in ‘moral’
distinctions, things can get messy. Does
smoking disqualify someone from being a
Christian? Is smoking a sin because it violates
the principle of taking care of one’s body as a
temple? There is no injunction against fun and
smoking in the Bible, the Ten Commandments,
or even from the Sermon on the Mount. At what
point do moral/ethical obligations confer
religious affiliation and devotion? This is a
question one must consider when reading
Grimke’s argument. How does partying and
smoking compare to adultery, rape, and
physical abuse of other human beings based on
ethnicity and social position? Can one be a
smoker, a party-animal, a murderer, a thief, a
rapist, etc., and still be a Christian? Who is to
judge these things? Is Sarah Grimke qualified?
Consideration of these points/questions doesn’t
mean one disagrees with Grimke, but one must
always question the assumptions of underlying
arguments. Is the real question ethics or
Christianity? What if one substituted Buddhism
or Judaism for Christianity? Would the basic
problem change?
Deleted: to
4
How did Grimke propose to promote the equality of the sexes?
Sarah Grimke mentioned how women are discriminated through their work, their
education, and their social status. For example, for the same quality of work, the male
Deleted: than
Deleted: a
Deleted: would
Comment [CM4]: This sentence is very
awkwardly phrased … a propositional phrase is
needed here.
would get twice or three times more than the woman would get. Also the education for
girls isn’t considered important. The household duties would be worth more than their
studies. Sarah wants the women to receive more for their work and that more people will
be aware of the situation until “some remedy is applied.” 3
Cherokees Debate Removal: Answers to Inquiries from a Friend, 1836 & A Reply to
John Ross, 1837
3. You should insert footnotes when referencing direct quotes.
Comment [CM5]: Here, you passed up the
perfect opportunity to bring relevance about this
issue to our lives today. Are we not still having
the same discussion in the 21st century? How
have things changed and yet, in some ways,
have stayed the same?
Team Fields - 5 1
For Ross, what did the principle “endure and forbear” suggest the Cherokee
should do? In what sense did Ross believe argument was a “weapon”?
What Ross meant by enduring and forbearing was that the Cherokee’s needed to
peacefully accept what the Americans had in mind for them, even if it was hard.
Argument was a weapon to Ross because he believed if they restrained from fighting and
simply argued, they could reason with the Americans. He believes this type of peaceful
disagreement is the best way to receive the rights equal to those of the American people.
2
What was Ross’s view of the “principles of white men”? How did they differ from
the principles of Cherokees?
He was passionate about the principles of white men and actually prided himself in
providing those principles to his people. His understanding of the principles of white
people led him to believe that surely the Americans would come to their senses and treat
the Cherokees with respect.
3
According to Boudinot, why was removal “the only course left”? Why was “the
moral condition” of the Cherokees an inducement for removal?
Boudinot argues that removal is the only course left because waiting around for the
Americans to give Cherokees the rights they deserve will just allow their race to
deteriorate even more in the meantime. The moral condition is already poor and he
theorizes that if the Cherokees decide to conform into the American culture, it wouldn’t
be two cultures combining, but one culture swallowing another. He claims that if the
Cherokees did not separate themselves soon, their culture would soon be destroyed.
4
According to Boudinot, what would be the result of following Ross’s plan and not
leaving ancestral lands in the East?
The result of following Ross’s plan was considered to be a bad plan to Boudinot because
John Ross follows the anti-treaty plan and Boudinot follows the treaty Boudinot believed
that John Ross wasn’t fulfilling his duty as a leader towards his people. The population of
Team Fields - 6 Cherokees began intermarrying with the whites and adapting to their lifestyles
concluding that the whole situation with this debate was affecting all of the Cherokees.
5
How did Ross and Boudinot differ in their views of whites and of state and federal
governments? How did they differ in their views of Cherokees? What did each see as the
most important sources of security and safety?
John Ross’ views of the whites and state/federal governments differed from Boudinot in
the sense that, Boudinot believed that they were getting enough security and protection
and didn’t need to leave their land that they occupied in the East. John Ross’ views
towards the Cherokees were that he didn’t believe in treaties in general. Boudinot wanted
a change in the environment with new rules and new expectations. John Ross thought that
they weren’t being protected enough, that is why Cherokee people were complaining to
him about the protection and that they wanted more security should be different than the
whites because he wanted the Cherokees to provide that security and protection for
themselves.
Please do not think am scolding you. There was not anything terribly ‘wrong’ about this paper.
On the other hand, it is an example of fulfilling one’s academic duty without overtly demonstrating
understanding or grasping the relevance of the topic at hand to the contemporary world and
society (well, there was the reference to partying and smoking and Christianity – but that analogy
was not extended deeply). I am not stating that you do not understand the relevance; I am
stating that you did not demonstrate this effectively. There is no evidence (citing other sources)
of looking beyond the readings attached to the assignment and regurgitating what was read, nor
is there much about drawing larger lessons, which is really the purpose of these assignments. I
even stated repeatedly in class that what I did not want to see was a direct response to the
numbered questions without any expansion of the topics, yet this is exactly what you submitted. I
know I stressed this was a college level class and that direct answers only in response to
questions may be suitable in high school, but in college, questions are to be considered and
addressed (rather than answered directly) within the larger context of broader considerations –
such as comparing and contrasting similarities and differences across different situations and
times. In addition, there were no footnotes for direct quotes used, no bibliography acknowledging
your sources. I had to reformat the paper so it was easier to read. I attached a copy of your
original format to the back of this document after the bibliography page I created. I do not think
anyone looked at the rubric for the Edmodo assignment, or if anyone did, no one gave it serious
consideration. However, this is your first assignment, so I am hoping you will improve with the
next one.
~CM~
Bibliography (?)
Boudinot, Elias. “A Reply to Joh Ross, 1837.”
Grimke, Sarah. “Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women.: Letters on the Equality of the
Sexes and the Condition of Women. Boston: I. Knapp, 1838.
Ross, John. “Answer to Inquiries from a Friend, 1836.”
Walker, David. “David Walker Demands Emancipation.” Walker’s appeal in Four
Articles; Together with a Preamble, To the Coloured Citizens of the World, but in
Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the United States of America Written
in Boston, State of Massachusetts, September 28, 1829. Boston: Revised and
Published by David Walker, 1830.
-1-
David Walker Demands Emancipation: Appeal to the Colored Citizens
of the World, 1829
5
6
7
8
According to Walker, how had “the white Christians of America” made the
“Coloured People of these United States… the most wretched, degraded and
abject set of beings”? What was Walker’s view of God? What did he believe
God would do about slavery? How and why?
● “The White Christians of America” treated the “Coloured People of these
United States” rudely and aggressively. David Walker’s view of god was
that if you believe/worship him and if you do good, good things will
happen back. He believed that god would see everything that happens with
slaves and will punish the people who hurt them.
In what ways, according to Walker, was “slavery… the source from which
most of our miseries proceed?” How did slavery affect Walker, who was free?
How did it affect other free African Americans, in Walker’s view? How did it
affect slaves?
● According to David Walker slavery was known as misery because of the
way slaves were being treated, abused, and killed. Walker was affected by
slavery because his own kind was not respected and they could not do
anything about it. So he decided to write this document regarding his
opinions/suggestions towards his kind. He proposed slaves to work for
emancipation. The other free African Americans were affected because
they were still communicating with the slaves. It did not affect the slaves
instead they were happy in pursuing what they originally do.
What did Walker believe “Men of colour” should do about slavery ]? How
should they deal with the reality of their poverty and marginality? What
should slaves do?
● David Walker believed that “men of colour” should fight for their rights
because they are men also. It didn’t matter what color their skin was. He
believed that they deserved to be treated better and wanted his “brothers”
to “enlighten” other “men of colour” to open their eyes and realize that
they didn’t need to be treated that way. Even if they were poor or didn’t
have well-paying jobs or were a part of lower social classes, it would be
better to live that way than being someone who cleans boots and shoes and
gets beaten on a daily basis. Walker thought they slaves should go against
their masters and to fight for their emancipation.
What did Walker envision about the future of the United States? What
grounds did he have for projecting such a future?
● David Walker envisioned the future of the United States to be slave-free,
where there were no slaves and people who were slaves; didn’t necessarily
have to be in high social classes they just needed to stop being mistreated
because they were men also. The reason why Walker protected this future
was because he was a “free African American” who had a slave father. He
was angry because of slavery and white supremacy and wanted it to come
to an end.
-2-
Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women: Letters on the Equality of the
Sexes, 1838
1
2
3
According to Grimke, what were the deficiencies of “the butterflies of the
fashionable world”?
● One of the main shortcomings of “the butterflies of the fashionable world”
that Grimke addresses is their education or knowledge of things. In a way,
she says that the only thing these butterflies know is how to attract men by
their looks, that feminine appeal. Education is not something they thought
would attract men and as Grimke says, “… where mental superiority exists,
a women is generally shunned and regarded as stepping out of her
‘appropriate sphere…’” Not only that, but she gets into the religious
aspect, talking about how these fashionable women haven’t found Lord
Jesus. She says, “… their weary and heavy laden souls to come unto Him
and learn of Him, that they may find something worthy of their immortal
spirit, and their intellectual powers… consecrate themselves unto the
service of God and not, as is now the case, to the pleasure of man.” Here
she follows up the idea of women only knowing how to attract men to the
idea of only being subjects to men.
Why were “women being educated, from earliest childhood, to regard
themselves as inferior creatures”? In what ways did this sense of inferiority
affect women? How should women be educated, according Grimke? Why did
she believe that a “knowledge of housewifery” was “an indispensable
requisite in a woman’s education”?
● Women from the start were taught that they were less than men because
that's just how it's always been. When they look out to the world, they see
the men around them superior to the women. This sense of inferiority
affects women in a way that if a man and a woman were to do the same
work, the man would get more credit than the woman, although he didn’t
do anything special or different from the women’s work. Not only that, but
if a women did the work a man did, and even did it better; she would still
be considered inferior to the man. But the most important work that was
put on a woman’s shoulders and was in no way associated with men were
the house duties. This is the area of knowledge that Grimke thought
women should know because it was the only area women really got credit
for. This should and is women’s area of expertise and this is a place where
they could maybe, just maybe be superior to men; and if not that, maybe a
little more equal.
What were the particular oppressions of slave women? What meanings did
Grimke attach to the term enslaved sister? Why was “the moral purity of
white woman… deeply contaminated” by slavery?
● The Grimke sister, Sarah, couldn’t even address the women of the south
(slave women) without feeling sorry for the way they’re being treated. She
wrote how “…women are bought and sold in our slave markets, to gratify
the brutal lust of those who bear the name of Christians.” This sentence
makes me think what kind of men would molest and rape women and still
be considered a “Christian”? But then I thought of a more modern and
-3-
4
typical example that is similar. Someone who parties, drinks, and smokes
go to church today and still consider himself or herself a “Christian”. This
made me realize that society hasn’t changed and putting a label on
yourself won’t change who you really are. She also described how the
slave women suffered from being torn of clothing, sometimes tied up and
whipped, while the lash would tear their almost lifeless body. This really
paints a picture of how severe the beatings were even for the women.
Grimke wrote about the enslaved sister, giving a meaning that they aren’t
just property but actual human beings. She wanted the white women to
feel empathy to the slaves and realize that they are no different than them.
Also that the morals of the white women are contaminated because they’re
a witness to all the impurity that is happening. They would see their own
husbands would commit adultery and the women would do nothing about
it. This is what she meant that slowly the women are losing their
innocence.
How did Grimke propose to promote the equality of the sexes?
● Sarah Grimke mentioned how women are discriminated through their
work, their education, and their social status. For example, for the same
quality of work, the male would get twice or three times more than the
woman would get. Also the education for girls isn’t considered important.
The household duties would be worth more than their studies. Sarah wants
the women to receive more for their work and that more people will be
aware of the situation until “some remedy is applied.”
Cherokees Debate Removal: Answers to Inquiries from a Friend, 1836
& A Reply to John Ross, 1837
1
2
3
For Ross, what did the principle “endure and forbear” suggest the Cherokee
should do? In what sense did Ross believe argument was a “weapon”?
● What Ross meant by enduring and forbearing was that the Cherokee’s
needed to peacefully accept what the Americans had in mind for them,
even if it was hard. Argument was a weapon to Ross because he believed
if they restrained from fighting and simply argued, they could reason with
the Americans. He believes this type of peaceful disagreement is the best
way to receive the rights equal to those of the American people.
What was Ross’s view of the “principles of white men”? How did they differ
from the principles of Cherokees?
● He was passionate about the principles of white men and actually prided
himself in providing those principles to his people. His understanding of
the principles of white people led him to believe that surely the Americans
would come to their senses and treat the Cherokees with respect.
According to Boudinot, why was removal “the only course left”? Why was
“the moral condition” of the Cherokees an inducement for removal?
● Boudinot argues that removal is the only course left because waiting
around for the Americans to give Cherokees the rights they deserve will
just allow their race to deteriorate even more in the meantime. The moral
condition is already poor and he theorizes that if the Cherokees decide to
-4-
4
5
conform into the American culture, it wouldn’t be two cultures combining,
but one culture swallowing another. He claims that if the Cherokees did
not separate themselves soon, their culture would soon be destroyed.
According to Boudinot, what would be the result of following Ross’s plan and
not leaving ancestral lands in the East?
● The result of following Ross’s plan was considered to be a bad plan to
Boudinot because John Ross follows the anti-treaty plan and Boudinot
follows the treaty Boudinot believed that John Ross wasn’t fulfilling his
duty as a leader towards his people. The population of Cherokees began
intermarrying with the whites and adapting to their lifestyles concluding
that the whole situation with this debate was affecting all of the Cherokees.
How did Ross and Boudinot differ in their views of whites and of state and
federal governments? How did they differ in their views of Cherokees? What
did each see as the most important sources of security and safety?
● John Ross’ views of the whites and state/federal governments differed
from Boudinot in the sense that, Boudinot believed that they were getting
enough security and protection and didn’t need to leave their land that they
occupied in the East. John Ross’ views towards the Cherokees were that
he didn’t believe in treaties in general. Boudinot wanted a change in the
environment with new rules and new expectations. John Ross thought that
they weren’t being protected enough, that is why Cherokee people were
complaining to him about the protection and that they wanted more
security should be different than the whites because he wanted the
Cherokees to provide that security and protection for themselves.